SonOfACockroach

The people'll be blowed up?

NihonNick

No, no. Of course they won't be blown up, whatever makes you think that?

They'll just be disrupted.

TSAMGR

Another assumption.

p1cunnin

Whoa! So at first glance this looks like an over-reaction, but read the news story. How many times have any of you gotten a positive ETD swab, much less 11 of them? They look over the laptop and it seems to be missing some screws and there also appeared to be something in the floppy drive. Bomb squads blow up suspicious items and the positive ETD swabs had to make them think that there was something in there that might just go boom.

To sit here and indict the TSA on this one is silly. To jump to all sorts of nefarious conclusions about loss of rights is equally silly. Yes, the guy was held overnight. They had to do an investigation until they knew what was in the darn thing -- which was likely in a lot of little bits and pieces. And they let him go in the morning. Let's face it: if you do any travelling, you've been through the drill a few times. You should know darn well that when they swab anything, they are looking for substances that go boom. If you've handled gunpowder or another explosive, there's a likelihood that it is on your person and clothing and there is a possibility that it will be detected. So if they detect something, you have to expect that you're going to get some serious scrutiny until they are sure you're not going to blow something up. Geez, do we have to wait until somebody blows up an aircraft here before you all understand the reason?

Aren't you all over-reacting a bit on this one?

AArlington

I don't think so. NC has a lot of farms. Pig farms as well. Lots of Nitrates. Could that set off an EDT? 11 scans with the same machine should produce the same results. The machine may be precise; doesn't mean it is accurate.

Either way, blowing up somebody's machine (with data) because another machine says so is stupid. They could have escorted the pax to an isolated area and then let the pax open it/take it apart etc himself. I doubt this was presented as an option.

In this circumstance, was the pax allowed to call somebody before hand? Like an attorney/employer etc? Would a pax be allowed to use his cell phone in this situation? Or would a paranaoid nut be concerned that the pax may detonate his explosive laptop with his cell phone? I know I have numbers of my employer's legal office on speed diall but I don't know what those numbers are. I'd be screwed of the autorities confiscated my cell phone in a situation like this (article doesn't say it happend, but I'll bet it did).

Apparently the machine was malfunctioning. I'd investiage the machine at this point, let the guy go with a sincern apology and a new laptop.

Doppy

It's mourning in America.

And stop complaining before you get disrupted.

eyecue

[QUOTE=AArlington]I don't think so. NC has a lot of farms. Pig farms as well. Lots of Nitrates. Could that set off an EDT? 11 scans with the same machine should produce the same results. The machine may be precise; doesn't mean it is accurate.{/quote] You are showing incredible lack of knowledge here.

IT was not one machine. It was a series of redundant checks that gave a high probability that some foreign object was in the computer. Those redundant checks were ETD, Xray and Visual. IF they had not taken the precautions that they did with this incident and it was a device and it went off, we would be eating crow. Remember that it wasnt JUST THE TSA involved here.

Speculation.

AArlington

ok; enlighten us, please. Are all TSA screeners shoe experts and explosive experts?

Well, apparently the high probabiity wasn't that high. Since after the laptop was "disrupted" there were no signs of anything.

...? "Hey Bubba?"

"Yeah Sherriff?"

"lookie here, there's a screw loose on the backside of this here 'puter!"

"OhMyGawd! That boy musta put a bomb inside of it!"

Or do they have Superman -like X-Ray vision?


What would be unreasonable about saying (after moving the person and laptop in a safer place) "Sir, our system indicates explosive material in your computer. Can you explain this? If there is no explosive material, how about walking out to that field where we have placed your laptop and take it apart for us so we can expect it further."

I can take my hard drive out of my laptop with one screw. If they let me take my HD out they can blow my laptop up just fine (provided they buy me a new one...and then some).

p1cunnin

Tell you what... the next time anything indicates a positive reading on an ETD, we'll let you decide what to do. You can go mess with the thing and let us know that it's safe. The rest of us will stand waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over there.

And what you say about nitrates is probably correct, but what I find interesting is that for all the horror stories about groping and shoe carnivals and such, I can't say that anyone has posted here about getting harassed over a false ETD reading. So what does that say? ETD hits are few and far between? FTers are smart enough to know that going hunting and immediately jumping on a plane is a bad thing? Or just maybe the sensitivity on those devices is set correctly and a positive read is indicative of something out of the ordinary?

If ETD false positives were a common occurance AND FTers were regularly being detained for an ETD reading, don't you think we'd see it here all the time?

I'd like to hear laptop dude's side of the story.

Doppy

If it's my laptop and I don't have a bomb in it, I'll be more than happy to mess with it. I'm sure this guy would have preferred to show them there was no bomb than to have his laptop "disrupted."

taucher

I don't suppose there's any chance of the laptop owner's being reimbursed by the government, is there?

eyecue

How did shoes get into this? The OP had nothing to do with shoes so I am not even going to go there. We are trained more on explosives than the average person.


Are you saying that end doesnt justify the means? There are tools that are used to evaluate risks. Multiple tools used by multiple agencies. The tools all said that it was a risk. AT what point do you disregard what your tools are telling you and go outside the protocol? You cannot. The risks are too high.


I can believe that you are only focusing on the visual aspect of the inspection. This is only one of things that was found. The xray showed something, the ETD said something, visual inspection said something, other agencies said something and all those somethings were the safe assumption based on the facts that were available at the time.


This is not a viable option. Everything that they had said that it was a bomb. If they had let the owner go out into a field and check it out and it was a bomb and he set it off, there would too many downsides. Liability, lawsuits etc etc. IT all comes down to threat mitigation. There comes a point that you have to believe that it is what it appears to be and you have to treat it as such. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck, It must be a duck.

That is fine but not all the laptops that we see are cutting edge, top of the line, last production model.

L-1011

eyecue, you are answering these posts as if you were there? Were you, or is this just, to use a favorite quote of yours: "speculation"?

eyecue

Not speculation, how about extrapolation.

JS

Well, apparently it wasn't a duck even if the machine said it was quacking like crazy. THERE WAS NO BOMB inside of it! Fact!!!